REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS (DPWH) ,

petitioner, vs. ORTIGAS
AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, respondent.
G.R. No. 171496. March 3, 2014

THIRD DIVISION; LEONEN

Appeal via Rule 41 to CA; pure question of law; interlocutory

orders

Owners whose properties were taken for public use are entitled to just
compensation.

Upon request of DPWH, Ortigas subdivided its lot for a road

widening project. Ortigas filed with the RTC a petition for authority
to sell to the government such lot. It was alleged that Ortigas was
not yet compensated with the property. RTC granted the petition.
OSG filed an opposition, alleging such property can only be
conveyed by way of donation to the government, citing Section 50
of PD 1529. OSG also filed an MR on the RTC’s decision granting
Ortigas’ petition. RTC denied the MR so OSG filed a notice of appeal
(Rule 41) on the MR’s denial. CA dismissed the appeal on the
ground that denial of MR is an interlocutory order, that it lacks
jurisdiction and that the case involves a pure question of law.

Did CA err in dismissing the appeal?

The question at bar involves pure question of law. Appeals from the
decision of RTC to CA via Rule 41 must involve both question of fact
and law. Pure questions of law must be raised to the SC via Rule 45.
There is a question of law when the appellant raises an issue as to
what law shall be applied on a given set of facts. Questions of law
do not involve an examination of the probative value of the
evidence presented. A question of fact invites a review of the
evidence.

Not all orders denying MR are interlocutory orders. An MR may be

subject to an appeal, if it puts an end to a particular matter, leaving
the court with nothing else to do but to execute the decision. The
RTC’s order denying OSG’s MR of the decision was not an
interlocutory order because it completely disposed of the case.

PD 1529 does not apply in expropriation cases. Ortigas must be

compensated because its property was taken and utilized for public
road purposes (expropriation). Section 50 of PD 1529 contemplates
roads and streets in a subdivided property, not public thoroughfares
built on a private property that was taken from an owner for public
purpose. Subdivision roads and streets are constructed primarily for
the benefit of the owners of the surrounding properties. They are,
thus, constructed primarily for private use — as opposed to
delineated road lots taken at the instance of the government for the
use and benefit of the general public. A public thoroughfare is not a
subdivision road or street. Taking of private property without just
compensation is a violation of a person's property right. In
situations where the government does not take the trouble of
initiating an expropriation proceeding, the private owner has the
option to compel payment of the property taken, when justified.